Editor’s note: This commentary is by Nancy Welch, of South Burlington, who is a professor of English at the University of Vermont and author of “A Semester to Die For.”
Recently the University of Vermont’s Lawrence Debate Union invited the administration to formally debate the question “Are UVM’s Proposed Cuts and Campus Reopening Plans Necessary for the University to Survive the COVID Crisis?” Debate planners are sorely disappointed that President Suresh Garimella and Provost Patricia Prelock have declined this invitation. (We’re also surprised given that President Garimella is a former collegiate debater.) Thanks to three skilled Lawrence Debate Union members who will fill the space abdicated by UVM administration, the debate will go on. But in the spirit of college debate — which values civil exchange over the “gotcha” tactics of so much contemporary political discourse — we share here the opposing team’s opening statement. Our hope: that this preview will make the administration feel more secure about meeting us on the debate stage or will at least encourage them to respond to the growing concerns about their chosen course.
Last May, after faculty shepherded students through the pandemic shift to online teaching, a faculty committee met to discuss the fall semester. We discussed low-density dorms for those students needing safe housing and internet. We discussed keeping most instruction online to protect those classes — in nursing, for example — that must be in-person. We were just getting started when the UVM Strong Advisory Committee, composed entirely of senior administrators, announced that UVM would be fully open for fall. Simultaneously, the administration imposed regressive cuts, including 5% pay cuts for most staff and a 25% job and pay cut for 72 lecturers. UVM’s top 72 executives also accepted a 5% pay cut — one that still leaves them with an average annual salary of $250,000.
This snapshot demonstrates that when faced with a problem — the very real crisis of coronavirus — administrators and faculty have very different solutions. Administration believes reopening the campus while cutting faculty, staff, and services are necessary for UVM’s survival. We argue that the administration’s plans imperil public health, students’ educations, and UVM’s future. We focus on two arguments. One, the university’s reopening plan fails to protect the interests of the community and students. Two, there are alternatives to aggressive reopening and regressive cuts.
My colleague, Yves Dubief, a professor in Mechanical Engineering investigating Covid aerosol transmission, will take up the science argument. Here I’ll note that as The New York Times recently reported, more than 6,000 campus coronavirus cases have already been documented. Campuses, argues Macalester College President Brian Rosenberg, are “ideal theaters of contagion.” Hence the CDC’s recommendation in their “Considerations for Higher Education” that most “Faculty and students engage in virtual-only learning options.”
Why aren’t UVM’s leaders following the CDC’s advice? For the same reason they did not include any of UVM’s epidemiologists, immunologists, and ventilation specialists on their UVM Strong Advisory Committee. Because for administration, this isn’t about science. It’s about their belief that UVM won’t survive if we do not promise a return to normalcy — however distorted by plexiglass barriers and students yo-yoing between in-person and online instruction days.
If only they had talked with faculty. Because educators know that the real issue isn’t in-person versus online but continuity versus disruption. With more than 75% of students coming from other states to live and learn in such close conditions, we will see new infection spikes that will result in another disruptive shutdown. In this debate you’ll hear from Clara Martorano, a member of the UVM Union of Students, about a recent survey of students who ask for more classes to be safely online.
The students are right: UVM should hold most classes online to safeguard the campus for those who must be there and to preserve educational quality and continuity for all. For a safe campus plus responsive remote teaching, we need faculty and staff in full force. The many classes taught online and the few taught on campus need to be small — which is why we need lecturer jobs restored.
How can UVM afford this? First, by not squandering $28 million in public Covid relief funds on a full campus reopening that’s bound to be soon followed by another costly shutdown. Second, by reducing executive spending. In 2017 the American Association of University Professors found that if UVM trimmed 3% from management, marketing, and the like, it could restore $12 million annually to academics. Third, UVM can draw more from its half-a-billion-dollar endowment’s unrestricted accounts. For example, the endowment includes a nearly $4 million unrestricted “quasi-endowment” account to save for future ventures like a new sports complex. That account alone holds four times what’s needed to restore the downsized jobs of 72 lecturers. This money shouldn’t be saved for a future stadium or other window-dressing add-ons to the university’s academic mission. All of UVM’s available resources are needed now — for our community, our students, and the people on whom our students depend.
For more information about the 12 noon Aug. 13 public debate and to request the Zoom event link, write uvmunited@gmail.com.
